My Life Fighting Judicial Corruption and the Political Subversion of Freedom; keeping in mind Winston Churchill's words: ""All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope"

Collectivization of Debt is Communism in Action: Republicans are Moral Lepers (the Republican House Majority in Florida has just passed HB 87, approving expedited foreclosures and insulating false securitization from effective challenge or review)

Without attempting to address everything you write, or even everything you wrote in your reply to Malcolm Doney below, regarding Florida HB 87 (04-30-2013 Florida House Bill 87 Just Passed—Communist Dream of Abolishing Private Property Marches Forward). Florida HB 87 degrades due process of law in the taking of property below “rational basis” review to no effective review at all…. any deprivation of private property should be treated, quite literally, with the same seriousness as a death penalty. Furthermore, by its expedited provisions, HB 87 will prevent all but the most prepared homeowners from mounting any sort of defense to a foreclosure suit at all.

HB 87 permits (encourages) banks to hit weak people at their weakest when they are down and hits them hard. At a time when the system should be extending every possible allowance to the “little guy”, the small time investor or single-family homeowner in economic distress, HB 87 makes sure that the fight (actually the sacrificial execution) of the homeowner will be swift but brutal. Summary foreclosure, summary evictions, the all permit the claimants to hide behind judicial procedures of expedience to avoid close scrutiny of their deceits and prevarications in pretense of compliance with the law—THAT is why the requirements of HB 87 are themselves dissembling and dissimulating of the true purpose: the goal is artificially to stimulate the economy by pretending to put more houses on the market. HB 87 is revolting! Republicans (at least in Florida) are really and truly MORAL LEPERS.

For family, home and freedom in America, the foreclosure crisis, and securitization of mortgages, is effectively a slow death penalty. I am appalled and shocked that the Republican Controlled State House in Florida has passed HB 87:

I think you basically have sold yourself out to the collectivist mentality, in that you see no injury resulting from securitization. As I wrote earlier: despite your citations to Black’s Law Dictionaryand your occasional assertion of the notion of sovereign citizenship, you no longer adhere to the Anglo-American common law (and indeed the Ancient Roman civil law) notions of private property, originating in private contract, and I think this is a terrible “shame on you” and your contributions. You have championed the “sovereign citizen” movement, but in betraying the doctrines of holder-in-due-course and privity of contract, you betray one of the most basic precepts of sovereign citizenship: the right to choose with whom you deal and associate. Socialization of debt by securitization deprives the individual of his freedom of choice of business associates.

Such things are always justified as “cost saving measures”, but they infringe to violently and directly on our individual autonomy. Surely you would agree that we have the right to choose our friends, especially our mates in marriage with whom we may spend upwards of 20-30 years, am I correct? If you agree with this proposition then you should agree that each man and woman has a right to choose his business partners in the same way, OR ANY OTHER PERSON WITH WHOM HE OR SHE WOULD CHOSE TO DO BUSINESS.

This freedom of choice surely includes the more important obligations we assume: marriage is a great example of an open ended series of interactions and obligations, but so is entering into any business partnership, including a partnership based on investment, in which one party lends another the funds to start a business or purchase a house with repayment planned over 30 years. The famous Christmas movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” illustrates the ideal of lending as partnership. When Frank Capra’s movie was made, in 1946, even just after World War II, the Federal Reserve system had already extended its tentacles everywhere, into even the banks of small town America, so the story was already anachronous to the reality of modern life—UP TO A POINT.

But even as a child, growing up age 6-12 in Dallas, I knew my grandfather’s bankers as family friends and neighbors. They went to the same churches, they walked and swam and boated in the same parks as we did. Those bankers had extended my parents personal letters of credit to live in London starting when I was six months old….The Astons who own and ran the Republic Bank of Texas in Dallas and the Dullworths and McKnights who ran First National Bank were real people. Everybody in Dallas knew everybody else on a first name basis….no one wanted national banks that crossed state lines—everybody knew what the consequences would be: destruction of freedom.

Their kids went to the same school I did. The adults entered into real contracts which were carefully negotiated with lawyers who were also our neighbors. When my grandfather wanted to start a new line of products or buy a new building, he visited them and discussed his plans in detail. Where is that kind of banking today? Republic Bank of Texas and First National Bank are long gone, absorbed by Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase, respectively. No one has any idea who is really in charge of these banks and in fact, no one is, because they are merely bureaucratic appendages of the government.

Because of the effective nationalization and government takeover of the national banks, loans are allocated by government policy discussed behind closed doors at the Federal Reserve Board these days—they try to encourage certain actions and discourage others by liberal lending and greater or lesser taxation. The impose nationwide CONTRACTS OF ADHESION that even small industrialists like my grandfather would have no power to negotiate anymore at all—this is the ultimate fruit of securitization—we have no freedom of choice anymore. We have been deprived of our local control and autonomy in the interests of streamlining the economy—of maximizing leverage and debt in the hands of the central bankers—this is not injury? This is the destruction and death of freedom….

You have always been very good to me and I hate to be critical, but you are as profoundly wrong as you can possibly be when you write:

1. The Ponzi scheme to which you refer (securitization) does not concern or injure the borrower, and that’s why courts across America have consistently ruled against securitization arguments in foreclosure defenses.

Collectivization of debt can only be permitted or exist in a world where private contract and private property have both ceased to exist. Florida HB 87 facilitates the abrogation of private autonomy without due process of law by demeaning private property acquired by contract to a level of an epiphenomenal set of rights, hardly worthy of the true status which ownership of private property enjoys as one of the Carolene Products, Footnote 4, specifically enumerated rights, deprivation of which is subject to the highest, strict level of scrutiny.. So the securitization of mortgages is the abolition of private property. The Individual is either the sole owner of her/his life or s/he is not. There are no shades of gray here. “Limited Sovereignty” is an oxymoron here.

In short, Bob, what you fail to realize is that Securitization constitutes a license arbitrarily and capriciously (1) to impair and in impairment of the rights and obligations of contract, in violation of Article I, Section 10 (see this old 1922 Law Review Article: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4859&context=mulr), (2) to take private property interests without due process of law when those property interests are secured and guaranteed by contract, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, (3) to infringe if not violate the freedom of assembly and association guaranteed by the First Amendment, (4) Securitization and in particular the amendments proposed by Florida HB 87 violate the Fourth Amendment “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” and (5) the Ninth Amendment reservation of the right of the people to the enjoyment of the privileges, liberties, and immunities afforded to them in the Anglo-American common law tradition.

In short, I can think of nothing more pernicious than the effect that Florida HB 87 will have on the property rights of Floridians.

You need to wake up, Mr. Bob Hurt, to the fact that securitization (i.e. collectivization) of debt is just the Bush-Obama Communist Oligarchy’s most effective tool for eviscerating all the property and contract related provisions of the American Constitution, of the Common Law, and of the traditional rights and freedoms of the English people, passed on to us, their American Heirs.

Make no mistake—in condemning our resistance to securitization, you are aligning yourself with the goals of the Communist Manifesto of February 1848, and of all subsequent efforts to obliterate the sovereignty of the individual which you pretend so vigorously to support as a matter of highest principle. Without the freedom to contract, in a world of contracts of adhesion with anonymous and unknowable, unreachable “supervisors”, we as individuals will cease to exist and our individuality will be obliterated in the collectivity of the Marxist anthill.

Malcolm:apparently you read what I wrote to Charles about HB87. It’s pretty simple really. We are lucky in Florida that we don’t have a non-judicial foreclosure process, MAYBE.I have learned a lot since we met at the May 2008 Foreclosure Defense Seminar. I’ll share a few points for your edification.1. The Ponzi scheme to which you refer (securitization) does not concern or injure the borrower, and that’s why courts across America have consistently ruled against securitization arguments in foreclosure defenses.2. The real problem of collusion between Clinton/Bush/Obama and Lenders which resulted in predatory lending and collapse of homeowner equities has not faced any day in court, and until it does, and the court rules against the lenders, no foreclosure court or trustee will consider the merit of the argument that “the lender caused the collapse of the value of my house and that’s why it’s underwater, and caused me to lose my job, and that’s why I couldn’t pay the mortgage.” You can present the FCIC report and TRY the argument, but it will fail because no borrower can prove proximate causation. I make the balance of my comments in light of this reality.3. Foreclosures, as equity proceedings, deal with FAIRNESS. It is hardly fair for a mortgagor to sign the note and mortgage, borrow and USE money, fail to pay accordingly, and then keep the collateral which the borrower agreed to forfeit in the event of default. Every single judge knows this, especially the senior judges you love to hate for their rocket docket summary judgments. So they have a natural predisposition to order the foreclosure unless the borrower can dispute the essential facts alleged the complaint.4. Except when temporarily derailed by standing issues, or the borrower cross claims with valid causes of action (which virtually never happens), statistically ALL Foreclosure complaints EVENTUALLY succeed because in fact the borrower did default and must forfeit the collateral. And they SHOULD succeed, for that reason.

5. The ONLY defense against foreclosure lies in an offensive action against the original lender or lender’s agents for tortious conduct, contract breaches, or legal errors underlying the mortgage. I have written about this till I’m blue in the face and NOBODY ever refutes it because it’s true. If the borrower cannot show how the lender injured him, the borrower who defaults WILL LOSE THE HOUSE TO FORECLOSURE, as the borrower should. Underlying causes of action give just reason to dispute the essential factual allegations in the foreclosure complaint. For example “Yes I breached the contract, but the original lender breached it first, AND fraudulently induced me to take a loan for far more than the actual value of the property (etc).”

6. Given the above realities, FORECLOSURE DEFENDERS engage in legal malpractice by fighting the foreclosure itself and failing to examine the mortgage for underlying causes of action. Their victims should sue them.

7. I gave cogent reasons for having no opposition to HB87 as I understand it. Foreclosure plaintiffs should stop screwing around and start speeding up their process, and competent judges should hear and dispatch the foreclosure cases, particularly those with no dispute of the essential facts.

8. If you had loaned someone $300,000 to buy a house, would you want the borrower to tie you up in court for years just to delay giving up the collateral?

Instead of getting angry with me, SHOW me where I’m wrong.

I have attached a totally bogus QWR from Neil Garfield, FYI. Why bogus? Because RESPA requires the servicer to answer ONLY questions related to the loan servicing, i.e. identifying what funds it disbursed to what entities. It can ignore all other questions, and a lawyer like Neil Garfield should have known that instead of concocting such onerous nonsense as his qwr.

I also attached my recent blast against Garfield for his bogus securitization arguments, and included plenty of case law to show how bogus they are. Also, here’s some more case law you might find useful. Where am I going with this? Virtually all foreclosure defense arguments other than standing issues or attacks against the causes underlying the mortgage WILL FAIL. So why bother with them just to delay the inevitable?

QUIET TITLE CASES

“Plaintiff’s basis for claiming ‘better title’ is that securitization somehow altered her obligation to pay her mortgage. This argument is unrecognized in the law.” Herold V. One West Bank (D. Nev. 9-29-2011);

Trusty V. Ray, 249 P.2d 814, 817 (Idaho 1952) (“[a] mortgagor cannot without paying his debt quiet title as against the mortgagee”); “Plaintiff’s quiet title claim is based on the argument that, as a result of securitization, the trust deed has been split from the note and, therefore, the deed of trust should be declared a nullity. This Court has repeatedly rejected this argument. Recently, both the Utah Court of Appeals and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals have similarly rejected this claim. For the same reasons stated by all of these courts, this claim must be rejected.

“Winn V. Bank Of America (D.Utah 1-4-2012); “A quiet title claim seeks to extinguish interests in the property in favor of the interest of the plaintiff. Here, Plaintiff is seeking to extinguish the Trust Deed. ‘To succeed in an action to quiet title to real estate, a plaintiff must prevail on the strength of his own claim to title and not the weakness of a defendant’s title or even its total lack of title.’ Plaintiff fails to assert her own claim to title. She does not allege that the Deed of Trust was not validly executed or that she is not in default under the note. Accordingly, the court rejects Plaintiff’s argument and dismisses this claim.

“Domingo V. Direct Mortgage Corporation (D.Utah 9-21-2011); “quiet title is not a remedy available to the trustor until the debt is paid or tendered. Plaintiff has not paid the loan amount, nor has Plaintiff alleged that he is ready, willing and able to tender the full amount owed. SeeFarrell v. West, 114 P.2d 910, 911 (Ariz. 1941) (refusing to quiet title until and unless the plaintiff tenders the amount owed, as required in equity). Instead, Plaintiff asks this Court to invalidate the claims of the beneficiary under the deed of trust. The Court will not indulge this inappropriate use of an action to quiet title; “Plaintiff’s argument that the assignment to U.S. Bank was void, and that U.S. Bank and MERS are not beneficiaries fails to support Plaintiff’s claim for quiet title. As discussed above, an assignment of a deed of trust does not need to be recorded in order to be valid, and under the terms of the Deed of Trust, Plaintiff was not entitled to notice of any such assignment.”

Frame V. Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation (D.Ariz. 9-2-2011); “This appeal requires us to interpret the statute governing judgments in quiet title actions. The statutory language is about as straightforward as such language ever gets: “The court shall not enter judgment by default. . . .” Entry of a default judgment against appellant HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., and in favor of respondent Harbour Vista, LLC, in a quiet title action was error.”

Harbour Vista V. Hsbc Mortgage Serv. Inc., G044357 (Cal.App. 12-19-2011); Mier v. Lordsman Inc., Civ. No. 10-00584, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8484, at * 15-17 (D. Haw. Jan. 26, 2011) (“[T]o assert a claim for quiet title against a mortgagee, a borrower must allege they have paid, or are able to tender, the amount of the indebtedness.”).

Fidelity Land Trust Case – put property in trust and use quiet title action to defeat foreclosure – a scam. Florida Attorney General complaint:

“… this Court concludes that Plaintiff initiated and pursued this litigation in bad faith. The evidence of this is legion: a state judge has told Plaintiff that its legal theory is meritless; a federal judge has told Plaintiff its legal theory is frivolous; and the Florida Attorney General has obtained injunctive relief against Plaintiff to prevent it from asserting claims based on the legal theory advanced in this lawsuit. Yet even in its objection, Plaintiff clings to the notion that its claims have merit. They do not… Plaintiff appears to be in the business of delaying lawful foreclosures. The courts are not to be used to delay, deny, or frustrate just claims, and they are not to be used as a cog in a litigant’s business model. Litigants who pursue meritless claims should be sanctioned, if only to ensure that the burden of their contemptuous behavior is borne by themselves alone.”

It is a long time since I contacted you Bob. I have believed for some time that somehow you have lost your way since the days when I believed that you stood for justice and doing what is right.

I have lived through and been the victim of Hitler’s fascism and I have lived in the UK during both conservative and socialist extremes. I well remember when the leaders of the UK Trade Union Congress made their annual Christmas pilgrimage to Moscow to get their instructions on how to disrupt the British economy over the next year and beyond.

I have also witnessed during my long life the extremes of communist, fascist dictatorships and religious fanatics and frankly while it may be very intellectual to debate whether or not communism or fascism is at work I could never see much to chose between Hitler and Stalin, or Idi Amin.

The evidence is overwhelming that the present mortgage foreclosure crisis was premeditated by the most evil organization in modern times, the Federal Reserve. That all these mortgages were set up to fail and comprise the biggest Ponzi scheme in the history of the world.Yet all I hear from those who seek to classify those of us who were the deliberate targeted victims of these Banksters and their government backers is that we borrowed the money and we should not get a free house.

Anyone, who cannot see anything wrong with HB 87 and its almost appropriately named SB 1666 is either totally blind or so brainwashed by a corrupted society that they are incapable of any constructive thought whatsoever. I think it is a tragedy that you have allowed yourself to be persuaded to your present apparent view. Anyone who believes in government of the people, by the people, for the people can see through this criminal land grab for exactly what it is.

Shame on you Bob – you have done such good work I am truly saddened to see your latest comments. When Henry Trawick – the Dean of Rules tells every member of Florida’s legislature that these bills are unconstitutional and bankster inspired there must be something wrong with this bunch of garbage. What is clear is that it is not in the interest of the people.

Point out to me any single document in the writings of Benito Mussolini, Admiral Horthy, Francisco Franco, Sir Oswald Moseley, Paul Joseph Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, or any economically oriented member of Hitler’s government that predicts the step-by-step takeover and abolition of private property the way the communist manifesto does. Oddly enough, the nearest to a “Socialist” among the Fascists would be British Sir Oswald Moseley. He was very aristocratic and really an admirable “failure” among all the Fascists of Europe, but his writings go the closest towards credit-based socialism of any genuine “Fascist” from the 1920s or 30s I know—and Moseley was the only one outside of Spain to continue active through the 1950s and 60s—during which time, oddly enough, he joined with former Marshall Petain supporter Robert Schuman and other “Labor Left Socialists” in pushing for the European Union after the war…. but I do not see how you can connect the movement of Fascism to Credit Leveraged Confiscation of private property for the purpose of abolishing private property….

HB 87 eviscerates the adversarial aspects of litigation in favor of the foreclosing party.

Are you ever going to work on developing those Vindicatio websites or not? If you’re not going to develop them I need to give them to Melinda Pillsbury-Foster but you DO have a better e-mail list to promote them on….. I thought we had a deal…But I’ll suggest to Melinda that she call you to check up on what your real intentions are….I certainly didn’t spend $100 on those domains just to let them sit around undeveloped and unpromoted….. If neither you nor Melinda want to work on them I’ll have to find someone else, but heck I BOUGHT them and I want to see some new business come in as a result…. but nothing will happen if a competent Web developer doesn’t do something—-Melinda’s working on a single case website for me in regard to a personal injury suit of mine in New Orleans….

Your problem, Bob, I have figured it out, with Neil Garfield and the Anti-Note Securitization Camp (you probably don’t like Mickey Paoletta either and basically you seem doubtful about me because I’m with THEM) is that you really do believe in Social Ownership of Credit—that is why you have jumped ship on the “holder-in-due course” doctrine…. Social Ownership of Credit leads to Social Ownership of all land and real property, perhaps all real and personal property… You have abandoned Capitalism….. you really do believe that proof of ownership is not essential to collect debt or foreclose a property…. if that’s raving like a lunatic then I plan on doing so continually until I die….

It is beyond appalling to me that any Republicans would vote for Florida House Bill 87 to speed up foreclosures….. Aren’t the Republicans supposed to be the party of traditional American Values? Aren’t Republicans supposed to be the defenders of common law against social engineering through legislation? Florida House Bill 87 is just speeding up the process by which the Soulless and Heartless machine of American Corporate Socialism sweeps up property into the collective “pool” of government ownership…. Everyone in Florida: WRITE TO YOUR SENATORS to stop the companion bill 1666 (how apt?) from passing. Every step we take towards socialized ownership of debt is a major triumph for Marx & Engels’ original “manifestation” of their dream to abolish private property in land, first published in February 1848 under the name of the Communist Manifesto.

All steps to abolish “holder-in-due course” doctrine assert that mortgage debts are not private but public, and this is the key ingredient of communist confiscation of all real estate in America…

One response to “Collectivization of Debt is Communism in Action: Republicans are Moral Lepers (the Republican House Majority in Florida has just passed HB 87, approving expedited foreclosures and insulating false securitization from effective challenge or review)”

Collectivization of Debt is Communism in Action: Republicans are Moral Lepers (the Republican House Majority in Florida has just passed HB 87, approving expedited foreclosures and insulating false securitization from effective challenge or review) | TIERRA LIMPIA by Charles Lincoln